The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a proposed six-month suspension of the Disciplinary Board in favor of a one year and one day suspension that a dissenting board member had recommended. The attorney had entered practice in 1999 after 20 years as a state trooper. He had previously been informally admonished.

The client matter that led to discipline involved failure to respond to the opposing party's insurer resulting in missing a statute of limitations and making a series of misrepresentations to his clients, successor counsel and the insurance company in a personal injury matter. He also continued to deal with the insurance company after the clients had discharged him. His claim that he was unaware that he was discharged was rejected as incredible. (Mike Frisch)